Steven Carr

Try telling that to people who had been personally given the power to raise the dead, and who allegedly had seen Moses (of all people!) return from the grave.

Steven Carr

It seems nobody believed in resurrection , except Jesus and the people he gave the secret of the kingdom of God to.

And the enemies of Jesus, who thought it very likely that the disciples would claim there had been a resurrection, and that this story would be believe by many.

Oh, and all those people who thought Jesus was one of the prophets returned from the grave.


And Herod, who thought John the Baptist had come back to life.

It appears that nobody thought a resurrection was at all a believable story, except Jesus, the enemies of Jesus, the general populace and Herod.



If the disciples needed to go fishing because the early church support was not around, how did they stop fishing before the early church support was around? Did the disciples wait for the early church support before they started preaching a resurrection?

I take your point about how you would have the first human to testify to the resurrection to be Jesus, and not a woman, if you were writing a false story.

Wait a minute! That is just what the author of the Gospel of John did.

Jane H

JS- I see where you’re heading now!

Jesus teaching about his resurrection wasn’t understood by the disciples (or the women). It’s a constant theme throughout Luke (who speaks of the meaning being hidden 18:34). Mark says ’they did not understand the saying, and were afraid to ask him‘. Matthew has Peter throwing a paddy the first time, and the disciples having panic attacks the second . See also Mark 9:9. There is no indication they understood what Jesus meant. The ‘third day’ phrase in particular- it’s anybody’s guess what they made of that. They probably thought it was a metaphor- misinterpreted like the rebuilding of the Temple in 3 days, and understood only after the resurrection (John 2:19-22 is explicit). This reading is clear right throughout the gospels. They weren’t looking for a three day return to life as Lazarus, because they didn’t understand that’s what Jesus meant.

And as I said, the women going to the tomb in pure hope is entirely believable from what we know about grieving people.

?Jesus made public appearances to demonstrate his resurrection? Have I misunderstood?

Jane H

Amaleq13- “abdication from serious thought “… what a sweetie!

It’s obviously not a matter of disagreement that an assessment of Jesus prediction of three times probably depends on the faith POV. Given the four gospel attestation, and the inherent plausibility of the situation, I stand by what I said about a denial being historically highly probable. Everyone knew Peter had blown it, and this story wasn’t going to be forgotten easily.

Or you could run with a “metaphor for the doubts of the author's audience”.

Incidentally, there is a lovely supporting detail about Peter’s accent in Matthew/Mark. The regional Galilean accent was the object of real snobbery by the ‘sophisticated’ southerners. It’s not usually imagined that Jesus gave the Sermon on the Mount in broad Geordie, or Scouse, but that’s the equivalent of how it would have come across.
(I have no idea of the U.S. equivalent).

Jane H

SC- That the belief in resurrection was, in C1 Israel, a controversial and very uncertain belief, is clear enough from the work historians studying the period have done (of all beliefs and none). However there was no sense in which resurrection was to happen in this life. Resurrection was only ever believed as coming at the end of time. I don’t think any of these are considered controversial statements.

I’m not all sure where you’re going with the fishing point- it’s not usually considered problematic. I would think the disciples continued both fishing and preaching until there was enough of an early church to enable them to just preach.

In what sense could Jesus not be the first person to testify about his resurrection?

Steven Carr

Matthew 27
he next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. "Sir," they said, "we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, 'After three days I will rise again.' So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead.

Thank goodness some people could understand what Jesus had been saying.

As always, the non-Christians understand theology much better than the followers of Jesus.

Steven Carr

Yes, belief in resurrection was a very controversial and uncertain belief because there is no record of any Jesus teaching such a belief.

And we know for a fact that when the NT says people believed Jesus was Jeremiah , or somebody else, returned from the grave, that must have been false.

Because nobody in 1st century Israel believed in Jeremiah being resurrected. That is clear from the work done by historians studying the period.

Are you ever going to bother studying what the New Testament says people actually believed,and what Jesus allegedly taught his followers?

The New Testament claims that the followers of Jesus had been given the secret of the kingdom of God. Jesus sent them out to preach and teach.

The idea that the disciples were the only people not to understand the meaning of the person they followed and worshipped is frankly an insult to our intelligence.

Do you think we are stupid?

Amaleq13

It seems to me an accurate description of shrugging one's shoulders and saying "Goddidit".

Despite really having nothing to support such grand hyperbole? It is historically possible but there isn't enough evidence to establish "probable", let alone "highly probable".

The fact that this is a viable possibility, alone, should be enough to dissuade you from exaggerated probability estimates about any alternative.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Jane H: If Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, it is probable that his followers would have believed his claim that he would rise from the dead too. That is because they would have believed that God was responsible for raising Lazarus from the dead, not Jesus, and that God would raise Jesus from the dead too. In addition, the many other miracles that Jesus supposedly performed would have given a lot more credibility to his claim that he would rise from the dead. Further, since the texts say that Jesus' followers believed that eventually, everyone would be resurrected from the dead, it would not have surprised them if Jesus rose from the dead, especially if he had told them that he would.

If Jesus raised Lazarus, it is beyond a reasonable possibility that an entire group of women forgot that Jesus told them that he would rise from the dead until the angel reminded them of it, and ALSO went to tomb early in the morning expecting to find someone to help them remove the large stone from the entrance to the tomb.

You said that claims of people rising from the dead are common today, and that they were common back then. If claim of people rising from the dead were common back then, why did Mary Magdalene believe that the body had been moved, and why did Peter go away from the tomb confused?

Matthew says that an angel told Mary Magdalene that Jesus had risen from the dead, but John says that Mary thought that the body had been moved. How do you harmonzie those two accounts? Did Mary made two visits to the tomb? If so, which Gospel accounts happened first?

You said that no one would write a false account that said that Jesus first appeared to women, but that is exactly what clever writers would have done if they had suspected that they would convince people like you.

Jane H

Sorry for the negative tone, but we need to move on. I had been enjoying the discussion up until today, but robust content has given way to content free rhetoric.

JS- Each of your points has been dealt with in my previous posts. I have no idea why you’re simply repeating the same questions, but unless you respond to my points, I see no point in adding further material. If you are unsure of what I mean, ask for clarification. If you have a counterargument, feel free to present it.

Amaleq13- Again, my evidence has been presented. A belief that Peter denied Jesus is 100% compatible with complete atheism. There’s nothing miraculous about it. It requires no special beliefs about the Bible. That is a “religiously motivated propaganda document” as I discussed in post 27. Given agreement on that, Peter’s denial has far more probability as a historical event than a metaphor for the doubts of the author's audience.